4.5 Article

Development and testing of the pain opioid analgesics beliefs scale in Taiwanese cancer patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT
卷 25, 期 4, 页码 376-385

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0885-3924(02)00681-4

关键词

cancer pain; pain management; belief; opioids; endurance; instrument development; POABS-CA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of the study was to develop and preliminarily test the feasibility, validity, reliability, and factor structures of the Pain Opioid Analgesics Beliefs Scale-Cancer (POABS-CA) in hospitalized adults diagnosed with cancer in Taiwan. This scale was developed in three phases. In Phase I, item development was based on qualitative analysis as well as a review of the literature. Face validity, content validity, and feasibility were also evaluated. In Phase II, internal consistency reliability was further tested in 42 subjects with pain. In Phase III, test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and essential construct validity were further assessed in a sample of 361 hospitalized cancer patients with pain. The POABS-CA evolved from testing as a 10-item 5-point Likert-type instrument. Higher scores indicated more negative beliefs regarding opioids and their use in managing pain. Satisfactory face validity and content validity were found. The POABS-CA was also shown to be a reliable and stable pain belief scale, with Cronbach's alpha and test-retest reliability of 0.70 and 0.94, respectively. Two factors, namely pain endurance beliefs and negative effect beliefs, were extracted from the principal component factor analysis to support the construct validity. In conclusion, preliminary evidence indicates the POABS-CA is a reliable, stable, valid and easily applied scale for assessing beliefs regarding opioid use for cancer pain. Further studies should test this scale in different populations to increase its applications in cancer pain management. (C) 2003 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据